從「正義」到「要義」──《五經正義》到《九經要義》中讖緯去留存化之演變探析

The Correct Interpretation to Essentials of Classics-An Analysis of the Evolution of Interpreting the Classics through Chenwei from“Wujing Zhengyi”to“Jiu Jingyaoyi”

本研究透過自《五經正義》至《九經要義》中讖緯被用於經典註解的留存與去化的承改情形，試圖探究中古時期經學詮釋的觀念演變，以了解此變革時期的觀念樣貌。《四庫提要》中援引王禕《雜記》提到唐代孔穎達作《五經正義》往往引錄緯書之語，到了北宋歐陽脩作〈論刪去九經正義中讖緯劄子〉倡論應將九經中的注疏重新整理，刪去讖緯之文，俾使學者不為怪異經說所惑亂，使經義純一。王禕認為宋人對經疏中讖緯的去化，直到南宋魏了翁的《九經要義》才做到「其言絕焉」。歷來諸家皆據此說認為緯說附經與配經之情況，自此斷絕。本文從魏氏《九經要義》留存下來的《尚書》、《春秋》、《禮記》、《儀禮》、《毛詩》等「要義」材料與《五經正義》中以緯配經的注疏條目進行比較分析，發現王禕之說並不盡然。箇中原因，一者乃魏了翁對於宋代注重空疏義理之弊提出重新以考據的方式進行解經；再者則經中之讖緯論說，在制度、自然、生活中的語境，已成文化之脈流，有劉師培提到的補史、考文之善，魏氏《要義》對經典的詮釋語境，有其排斥讖緯的態度，卻也存在留存其說以釋經的事實，應有重新探索與考察必要，以釐清唐宋經說引用讖緯解經之觀念與態度。

This study attempted to explore the evolution of interpretive concepts in classical studies during the medieval period by examining the retention, deletion, or extraction of omen interpretation from“Wujing Zhengyi”to“Jiu Jingyaoyi,”in order to understand the conceptual landscape during this transformative period.“Siku Ti Yao”cited Wang Yi’s“Zaji,”a Ming dynasty scholar, mentioning that during the Tang dynasty, Kong Yingda often quoted passages from omen books in“Wujing Zhengyi.”However, by the Northern Song dynasty, Ouyang Xiu proposed in his essay“A Suggestion to Remove Omen Interpretations from the Nine Classics”those interpretations in the Nine Classics should be reorganized, and passages related to omens should be deleted. This was intended to prevent confusion among scholars caused by strange interpretations and to maintain the purity of the classical meaning. Wang Yi believed that it wasn't until Liao-Weng Wei’s“Jiu Jingyaoyi”during the Southern Song dynasty that the removal of omens and astrology from the commentaries on the classics was fully achieved, stating that“all interpretations related to omens and astrology should be completely removed.”Historically, scholars all accepted this assertion as marking the cessation of interpreting the contents of the classics through omens and astrology. However, this study conducted a comparative analysis between the surviving materials from Liao-Weng Wei’s“Jiu Jingyaoyi,”such as those on the“Book of Documents,”“Spring and Autumn Annals,”“Records of Rites,”“Rites of Zhou,”and“Book of Odes,”and the entries in“Wujing Zhengyi”that match the mysteries with the classics to interpret the contents of the classics. It found that Yi Wang’s statements were not entirely accurate. The reasons were: firstly, Liao-Weng Wei proposed to reinterpret the classics using the Han scholarship style of textual research, in response to the Song dynasty’s emphasis on the detriment of vacuous and abstract principles; secondly, the discussions on Chenwei in the classics, within the contexts of systems, nature, and life, have become a cultural stream. Shi-Pei Liu highlighted the merits of historical supplementation and textual examination. Wei’s“Essential Meanings”exhibited an attitude of rejecting prophecies and mysteries in the interpretation context of the classics. However, the fact that such theories were preserved for the purpose of explaining the classics indicates a necessity for re-exploration and investigation. Thus, this was to clarify the concepts and attitudes towards the use of Chenwei in interpreting the classics during the Tang and Song dynasties.